Evolutionists Now Claim Directed Adaptation is Evolution in “Real Time”

If you remove the caterpillars from an evening primrose population, the plants will adjust, and adjust fast. Within even a few generations intelligent changes arise reflecting the absence of the predator. For instance, in plots protected from insects, the flowering time and defensive chemicals against the insects adjust. The plant’s resistance to insects is reduced, which makes sense since the insects are no longer attacking the plant. And in exchange, the plant’s competitive ability is improved. In other words, remove a threat that the plant had to defend against, and the plant population immediately and intelligently exploits the opportunity. It is yet another fascinating example of biology’s many built-in adaptation capabilities. Yet evolutionists claim it demonstrates evolution occurring in “real time.” To understand this move we need to begin with three underlying concepts: deep time, the definition of evolution and blowback. Read more

10 Responses to Evolutionists Now Claim Directed Adaptation is Evolution in “Real Time”

So clear evidence of intelligently designed (in-built) mechanisms producing rapid adaptations to new environmental conditions becomes evidence for unguided evolution in the Darwinist mind??? It is no wonder that Coyne stated:

It is interesting to point out that Coyne is ’embarrassed’ (yes EMBARASSED!) by his teaching colleague James Shapiro for stating this following obvious point:

Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century – James A. Shapiro – 2009
Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....0Dogma.pdf

Dating Between Modern Humans and Neandertals – (Oct. 4, 2012)
Excerpt: The team estimate that Neandertals and modern humans last exchanged genes between 37,000 and 86,000 years ago, well after modern humans appeared outside Africa but potentially before they started spreading across Eurasia. This suggests that Neandertals (or their close relatives) had children with the direct ancestors of present-day people outside Africa.http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....201046.htm

It was the subject of headlines around the world: Three Mexican fishermen in a small open boat without any supplies, drifting for more than nine months and 5500 miles across the Pacific Ocean. Through blistering sun and threatening storms, they battle starvation, dehydration, hopelessness, and death. Their lifelines? An unwavering faith and a tattered Bible.,,,

OT: This Week on Unbelievable (Christian Radio) : Atheism’s New Clothes – David Glass vs James Crofthttp://www.premierradio.org.uk/unbelievable.aspx
description: David Glass is a University lecturer in Northern Ireland. His book “Atheism’s New Clothes” critiques the arguments of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett. He says that, on the balance of probabilities, theism offers a better explanation of life and the Universe than atheism. James Croft works with the Harvard humanist community. He contests David’s use of probability theory. They discuss whether God is a good explanation for the fine tuning of the universe.

So then, the lion one day lying down with the lamb isn’t so far-fetched after all?

It strikes me that what the fossil record could actually record is the opposite of what everyone assumes that it records. Because it exists as a result, not just of life, but also of death. An important point, in that for death to exist there must be life. But the converse, that for life to exist there must be death, is not necessarily so.

There is nothing in the fossil record that would rule out God having populated the earth – in biblical fashion – with kinds, say, of one pair each. Which then reproduce until their niche is filled, and afterwards live on as individuals perpetually on the “milk and honey” of the earth.

Such a scenario would mean that what the fossils actually show, moving slowly and steadily upwards through the taxonomic orders, is the rise, not of life, but of death. Along with the remains of organisms’ adaptations to that awful development, including a reversion to reproduction along with descents into predation and parasitism, also seen in the living world.

Adaptations made possible genetically by the pre-programming God. Who had ajudged that the consequence upon all creation, should the beings who He gave free will sin, would be death, yet who had “formed the earth to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18). Adaptations which would therefore represent stop-gap measures until He would, in the fulness of time, redeem His creation through Christ.

Romans 8:21 (ASV)
For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Been reading an old article on the fantasies of our friends, the animists/evolutionists by Cornelius Hunter, which he understandably concludes with the words:

‘The theory becomes more complicated as it now must account for unexpected and seemingly contradictory findings.’

Tut. Tut. Cornelius. You must not describe the findings of our animist friends as, ‘contradictory’. Apparently it’s most unscientific. No! the word you should have used is: ‘counter-intuitive’….. unless used in defence of the animutionist faith againt the infidels.

“I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension.” “…, I find this view antecedently unbelievable—a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense”.
Thomas Nagel – “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False” – pg.128http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ.....rn_si_1_im

Neodarwinian evolutionary perspective is scientifically deficient at the very least. Not only that it is logically, philosphically unsupportible. I challenge any Neodarwinian supporter to demonstrate these observations to be incorrect. And this is true despite all of the supposed alleged so called scientific proclomations over the years that claim to support the assertions.

Since I am still a slave to to making a living via unrelated yet important activities that consume time, I would like to ask the very articulate and thoughtfull supporters of ID to contemportaneously respond to contrary arguments to the above observations, atleast until I am able to respond.

Let me put it another way. Embracers of Neo Darwinian philosophy put out as science, are full of bs.

I’ve started reading Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos. I’m about 1/3 way through by now. I’m disappointed — he has some good insights, but doesn’t do the work he really needs to do to vindicate those insights and defend them from fairly obvious objections. Nagel’s book got severely criticized by two prominent philosophical naturalists, Brian Leiter and Michael Weisberg (here). It seems clear to me that Nagel would not have been as vulnerable to their criticisms if he’d been more careful.

AMEN. A good thread of how it’s hinted biological processes are hidden in biological entities.
without investigation this would not be known or predicted!
It hints that adaption could do a lo of creating. !
No evolution need be invoked for important biological change.